The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1887-08-13
TWO ISLANDER SUITS.
Results of the shriner Swind1e-Impncation OF
a Citizen of Westminster-Two SANDER
Suits.

There have grown out of the swinding of
Mr.. Abraham Shriner, of Ianeytown district,
reported in the ADVOCATE last week, two suits
for SANDER They were brought by James
A. C. Bond ESQ.,, attorney for Mr.. James E..
Smith, of this city, one against Mr.. Shriner
and the other against Constable John Thorn
son, of Westminster. The suits were docketed
last Saturday, and are for $1,000 damages in
each case, the ground for the suits being al
legations by the defendants making it appear
as Mr. Smith understood them, that he Mr..
SMITH was an accomplice of TIE parties who
swindled Mr.. Shriner.
The suits are brought, Mr.. Smith says, only
for the purpose of vindication. He feels ag-
| grieved and outraged at the suspicious cast
upon him, and proposes to have the fullest
investigation in open court.
There was third man in the scheme to
swindle Mr.. Shriner. Constable Thomson,
as was his duty, undertook to hunt down the
guilty parties Mr. Shriner described one of
description. Mr.. Thomson made some in
quiries at Mr.. Smiths stables concerning the
hiring of the team on Tuesday to the parties
that were stopping at the Hotel Albion, and
as to Mr.. Smiths whereabouts on that day,
and this exasperated Mr.. Smith when he
heard of it.
Mr.. Shriner was to have come to Westmin-
ster on Friday of last week, in connection
with the case, but did not appear, and the
two suits were instituted on Saturday. Mr..
Shriner came down on Monday. and meeting
Mr.. Smith, concluded not to swear out war
rant for his arrest. He said that one of the
swindlers looked like Mr.. Smith, and was
about the same build and talked like him,
but he was unwilling to say that he believed
that he (Mr. SMITH was the man. Neither
wnnld he swear that he was not.
Mr.. Smiths most decided enemy would
scarcely believe him guilty of engaging in
confidence swindle; in fact, those who have
grievances against him do not hesitate to ex-
onerate him Apart from this, that he was
not engaged in it is susceptible of clear proof
He was not in Mr.. Shriner' sneighborhood on
the day of the swindle. The scheme was
worked about O'Clock in the morning, and
at that time Mr.. Smith was here in Westmin-
ster. About that hour on that day he started
for Isaac Gardeners, below Carrollton. He
was seen passing Carrollton, with William
Fisher. his stable manager, by MIR. Chew, and
Mr.. and Mrs Gardner can testify that he was
at their farm in the forenoon. be came
back to Westminster just before noon, and
about an hour later went up near Mt. Pleasant
to see George Huff. Mr.. Huff was not at
home, and he went to the Mt. Pleasant Hotel
and remained there until after o clock. On
his way home he stopped at John Maish's and
John Masonheimer's. All of these people
can testify to these facts, and had he been
arrested he could have easily proved an abb
and thus cleared himself of any charge in
connection with the swinde.
Mr.. Shriner never knew Mr.. Smith until
he saw him here on Wednesday of last week.
Whatever suspicious he had grew out of the
fact that two of the men who had swindled
him out of $3.50 had hired team from Mr..
Smith; that Mr.. Smith was absent from home
on the day he was feeced, and that he ans
wered description of one of the men who
was engaged in the transaction.